Posted on 04/23/2009 6:09:30 PM PDT by SJackson
When I leave to go to the grocery store, there are a few items I keep in mind to take with me — debit card, car keys, cell phone and maybe a pair of steel-toe boots if it’s the rush right before Christmas dinner.
But until now, I hadn’t thought to bring a 9 mm with me.
Well, why not? It’s legal. And it would probably clear the aisles pretty quick.
At least, that’s the opinion of Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen (not the shopping thing, I’m sure his slicked-back hair is enough to scare those crowding the dairy section). In an opinion released on Monday, Van Hollen made clear what most gun rights advocates already knew and most law enforcement find bewildering: Police can’t arrest you for disorderly conduct simply for openly carrying a gun, even if you don’t have a permit for that gun.
Well, strap on a holster and call me John Wayne! Oh, don’t worry, I don’t want to shoot anyone. Nor did the West Allis man who was arrested on his own property for openly carrying his gun — he was doing yard work. Nor do most of the hunters in Northern Wisconsin who treat their guns as essential tools to a rite of passage.
And usually, police should be able to tell whether you’re ready to kill someone or just casually showing off your Second Amendment rights in a completely unnecessary way. In Van Hollen’s opinion, for example, the difference between disorderly conduct and constitutional right can be as small as yelling at someone while holding a gun.
Of course, you can understand how this would irk law enforcement. Cops in white bread parts of Wisconsin will see a man with a gun and have images of every small town rampage flash before their eyes. Before you know it, the gun-toting citizen is on the ground and a mostly inert situation has been rendered completely absurd.
But the issue for law enforcement isn’t suburban, peaceful Wisconsin. It’s Milwaukee.
You know, that place where gun deaths run rampant, gunfire strikes down innocent bystanders and talk radio pundits are throwing up their arms and heralding the breakdown of civilization.
And law enforcement officials there are feeling embattled by Van Hollen’s decision. Not only because it seems vague, but also because they seem to feel it doesn’t allow them to arrest gun-wielding youth on the spot.
Well, whatever — they’re still going to do it.
“My message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we’ll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it,” Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. “Maybe I’ll end up with a protest of cowboys. In the meantime, I’ve got serious offenders with access to handguns. It’s irresponsible to send a message to them that if they just carry it openly no one can bother them.”
But in what situation is Van Hollen’s opinion going to stop police from doing their job?
Man holding gun in his hand? Reasonable suspicion. Man with gun in car? Still against the law. The only scenario I can see where a person with a gun doesn’t end in an arrest is if a suspected threat walks down the street with a gun tucked in the front of his pants, but still visible, and then simply walks by police without a single facial tick or sneer. But be realistic, how many people are going to see police while showing a piece and not react in a way deemed suspicious?
I know what gun control advocates will say: “This is just one more step toward proliferating gun violence in Wisconsin. Next is concealed carry.”
Maybe. But let’s be honest with ourselves — who handles guns, what kind of guns they have and how they get those guns is a lot more important than how someone handles their gun.
Laws prohibiting guns in public places serve a normative purpose in regulating gun use, but practical enforcement is rather limited. Once someone has a gun in public, one of two things happens: They either take it out and start shooting people or they beam with pride as they test the produce.
But either way, the police are still going to approach you. If you’re about to shoot someone, they’re either going to stop you or regrettably have it end in a shootout. But if you are just going about your day and feel like alarming your neighbors for the sake of touting your newly emboldened Constitutional rights, yeah, you should be allowed to go about your shopping/picnic/other non-trigger tripping situation.
But gun control advocates will at least have the opportunity to pick their battle. There are kids getting guns in front of Chicago schools with assault rifles and mentally unbalanced individuals getting guns without any problems.
Deal with them first. The man doing lawn work isn’t a threat — he’s just obnoxious.
Jason Smathers (jsmathers@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in history and journalism.
They’ll have your profile in every squad car if it’s up to thaem.
No, it is not.
You don't suppose that the cops are going to be arresting each other, do you? That is because they presume that another uniformed officer is justified in carrying his weapon openly on his hip. All the cops have to do is recognize that every law-abiding citizen is justified in carrying his weapon openly on his hip also.
It's really not that complicated. Just treat every law-abiding citizen with the same consideration that you would a uniformed cop.
It's about time that the cops started recognizing who is the master and who is the servant.
NO the obnoxious one is you,you eliteist twit.
The transformation that you have described is, unfortunately, only cured by massive suffering. The cost may be paid many generations from now in the blood of our descendants, when the loss of liberty, typically tolerated for temporary security, fails to even put food on the table.
There is a third possiblity; they may be in the right place at the right time to stop the person he describes in alternate one- the one that starts shooting random people.
“An armed society is a polite society” I find that whether you are at the gun club or in a part of the woods where half the people are carrying firearms that this is a very true statement.
Actually some places had very strict local firearms laws- many towns did not allow you to carry in town in any fashion. Other than that I imagine they waited to see if you were up to no good or not. What a concept.
“In Virginia, two young men collected a total of $25,000 in settlements from the City of Norfolk”
Was that for carrying guns openly or something else?
They probably already do and most of the profiles are probably pretty close to the drivers of the squad cars. A LOT of them are former military and conservative. At least the ones I've met in Arizona.
And some places (towns or establishments) required you to check your gun at the door, or town limits. You were free to pick them back up on your way out.
We're going to spend a weekend with some friends in Milwaukee next month. I could use a bit of extra cash and don't mind going through both the Wisconsin State Courts and the Federal Courts.
I think it would be kind of cool to have a former big city Police Chief mowing my lawn and cleaning my pool for me. Not to mention I could find a use for a few hundred thousand extra dollars...
L
He’s not obnoxious for exercising his Federally-protected constitutional right, his state-protected constitutional right. Too bad if you have a personal problem with someone exercising a constitutional right. Nobody says you have to carry.
That’s like saying voters are obnoxious simply for voting. That’s like saying Christians are obnoxious simply for going to church. That’s like say, well, columnists such as this putz are obnoxious simply for writing.
What an utter idiot.
There is pre-emption law in the WI state constitution. Local govts cannot make laws that deprive citizens of their state constitutionally-protected rights.
WI needs Concealed Carry Law.
Open carry harassment. One of them was a "black man with a gun." It appears that $10,000 and $15,000 is what they offer when they just detain you, rather than "put you on the ground" (assault & battery), so I expect that a settlement from these guys will be much higher. Another fellow won a settlement from Gonzalez, Louisiana's police department.
Check out http://www.opencarry.org/
Well, it’s “Hear, Hear!!”, and is used (usually in conjuction with desk-thumping) to cheer on a point made during a speech in most Parliaments and many other legislative bodies.
It’s a civilized cheer for a speech, as opposed to whistles and hoots.
And that was the first manifestation of the difference between the urban and rural environments. It was taken as a plain truth back then that everyone had the right to carry a gun when out on the trail, as there were so many potential hazards. However, it might not be a good idea to have a saloon full of drunken brawlers with guns when they came into town for some R&R. Hence, the Sheriff might keep everyone’s guns in his office while they had a good time.
This police chief seems to lack the minimum IQ needed for the job. He's admitting that "serious offenders" already have access to guns. Presumably he realizes that he and his "troops" are not presently free to "take down" people who they recognize as having previous criminal convictions just for walking down the street with no visible weapons. But somehow he imagines that allowing open-carry will increase the ability of "serious offenders" to go about the city in possession of guns. Does he actually not get what the baggy-saggy pants fashion is about?
It is also the author’s federally-protected Constitutional right to view open-carry in supermarkets and while mowing one’s lawn as “obnoxious”, and to share that view with the general public. He is simultaneously recognizing that there’s no rational basis for outlawing this form of “obnoxiousness”.
His approach is more likely than yours to convert people who oppose the attorney general’s position, into people who support it. He’s writing for a college audience, and it’s certain that a majority of Wisconsin college students think people who open-carry in situations where there’s no particular threat are “obnoxious”. He’s telling them, “Yes, fine, I hear you, that’s what I personally think of them too. But here’s why you still shouldn’t be opposed to the AG’s recently pronouncement that open-carry is perfectly legal.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.